Re: Collapsable Folders Problem

[Peter H. <pet...@hu...>]

Wouter Teepe said:
> Paul Joseph Thompson wrote:
>> <quote who="Wouter Teepe">
> [..]
>> > To the best of my knowledge, the collapseable folders look
>> > *really* ugly in rc2, due to a small problem that always occurs. Please
>> > somebody fix it, because collapseable folders can be such a beauty.
>
> That sounds good. To answer Peter's question on this:
> The bug appeared on left_main.php v 1.86
> (This is exactly the version in which "echo" was written out of
> FoldLink.)

Hey, thanks!

> [..]
>> First of all, can you give us some more of an example as to what you are
>> talking about by "now appear on the right of the folder
>> name". I think that you mean things used to look like this:
>>
>
> ONE:
>>   - INBOX
>>   +   foo1
>>       foo2
>>   -   foo3
>>   +     foo_a
>>         foo_b
>>         foo_c
>>   +   foo4
>>
>> And they now look like this:
>>
>
> TWO:
>>   - INBOX
>>     + foo1
>>       foo2
>>     - foo3
>>       + foo_a
>>         foo_b
>>         foo_c
>>     + foo4
>>
>
> I'd wish... they look like this: (THREE:)
>
>  INBOX -
>    foo1 +
>      foo2
>    foo3 -
>      foo_a +
>        foo_b
>        foo_c
>    foo4 +
>
> I don't oppose to the formatting as in TWO.
> It is indeed better than the formatting in ONE.
>
> [..]
>> > The origin of it is in that in left_main.php, in the function
>> > FoldLink no longer (as opposed to rc1) directly echos the output, but
>> > returns it to some 20 lines up.
>>
>> Secondly, the function FoldLink is by no means to be changed back to a
>> version in which it directly echos the output. Squirrelmail 1 is full of
>> code applying such bad coding practices as this. The
>> reasoning for my stance here as follows.
> [..]
>
> I agree completely with you on this.
> I do not (wish to) propose returning to echoing directly from FoldLink
> again.
> Maybe I should have clarified my analysis a bit more.

> As far as I can see, it totally fixes the problem, and the problem is
> explained.
> (However, I don't really see how the code should produce the formatting as
> in TWO, maybe I haven't looked into it enough for understanding that part)

FWIIW, "three" give me screaming fits.  I like "two."

-Peter